• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Highend vs Mid-Range, was AMD right?

D

DeeDot78

Member
Although there's no website link. I'm a regular reader of PC Format magazine. In this month issue, there's a comparison of 2 rigs. 1 high end(Intel) vs Low Mid-range(Amd).

System 1
Intel 3960x
Radeon HD7970
Asrock X79 Extreme 4
Corsiar Vengance 1866
RevoDrive3 X2C
Corsair AX1200 PSU
Total- $4141.00

System2
Amd 960T BE
Radeon HD6850
Gigabyte GA970A UD3
G. Skill triden 2000
Hitachi Desktar 7K100
Cool Master 800W PSU
Total- $738


Games tested were Dirt 3, Skyrim, and Crysis 2. The Intel Rig was made to max out all games, the Amd rig dropped detail down to next level. Three reviewers where asked which was better gameplay/graphics between both rigs. The reviewers had a very hard time telling the difference between both rigs, even though the intel rig had 2x the fps. It just sheds light onto the problem of us enthusiasts, number watching on benchmarks, and not relating to real world experience. The only difference that was routinely detectable was the boot-times, due to the Revo Drive.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't surprise me in the least, but I'm an 'enthusiast' who doesn't obsess. Well, perhaps I don't fit the enthusiast category much...I have built my own machines for over a decade, but I don't go crazy with them. I don't case mod, heck, even my cable management is pretty much non-existent. (The view of the inside of my case would likely make many of you cringe). I don't ever go for the absolute top of the line, but rather firmly mid-range with good performance. I mean, let's face it, my mildly overclocked 2500K is faster than pretty much any chip out there at stock, except the 6 core i7s.

I have never paid more than $160 for a video card in 14 years of purchasing discrete cards for my systems. And I can play all the games I want to play at relatively high video settings with AA on.
 
We've reached the point of saturation and cpu linearity for most tasks. For the average consumer, computers have been 'good enough' for several years. For enthusiasts, there will always be something about which to complain.

Though a real computing enthusiast would probably be curious enough to own both AMD and Intel. I might even own new product from Via, Cyrix, IBM etc., if they were still prominent in the consumer CPU market. I personally love my AMD X6 and i7-2600K equally.
 
Then why does AMD make high-end video cards?

That's called talking out of both side of your mouth.

Translation - "We can't compete, so we will declare it irrelevant."
 
Last edited:
What resolution and monitor? If you waste $4k on a system (you have to try to spend that much, you don't naturally spend that much, and if you have, it's contrived), and use some crappy 720p LCD, this wouldn't surprise me at all. Something is only as good as its weakest component, and a monitor is the most important (and most expensive if you do it right) part.
 
I understand the point they are making, but it's sensationalistic to say that is a $4k gaming machine. The RevoDrive is a waste of money as is the 6 core CPU. They should have used the $600 SB-E CPU, a $200 SSD boot drive and CrossFire 7970's with EyeFinity/3D, that would be a better test of ~$3-4k gaming performance versus $700 on one 1080p LCD.
 
gramboh said:
I understand the point they are making, but it's sensationalistic to say that is a $4k gaming machine. The RevoDrive is a waste of money as is the 6 core CPU. They should have used the $600 SB-E CPU, a $200 SSD boot drive and CrossFire 7970's with EyeFinity/3D, that would be a better test of ~$3-4k gaming performance versus $700 on one 1080p LCD.
Click to expand...


If you're playing games, there is little reason to buy SB-E. We all know this. 2500k is your best bet, 2600k if you really want HT.
 
I think it comes down to the reviewers. If the reviewers are people that game on xBoxes all day, I can see them not being about to make the distinction.
 
The resolution was 1080P, and if you look around alot of people are who dont do multi monitor setup have 7970, and 2600ks and higher. It just speaks to the fact that INGAME gameplay was hard to see a difference. Even if you change to 2600K and lower cost SSD, it wouldnt match the cost of amd setup. The reviewers are all PC gamers.

I have a 1090t with crossfire 6870's, and i've been really tempted to upgrade, but it has to be worth it for me to do so. I could plunk down for 7970 and 2600k right now, but will i notice a gigantic differnce in the game i play? BF3, no, not enough to justify the costs. My old college roomate, has a GTX 590 and 26ook, I've gamed on his system. I really cant tell a difference at all, even with AA jacked up, but that may just be a side affect of how well programmed BF3 is.

The point of article was to high light how we get caught up in specs of hardware and not the experience itself.
 
Last edited:
But you could make an intel setup for the same price if all you wanted was 1080p.

Who in their right mind spends 4 grand on a computer and then uses a crappy 1080p monitor?

Seriously?

(hint, someone really, really dumb)
 
Ferzerp said:
But you could make an intel setup for the same price if all you wanted was 1080p.

Who in their right mind spends 4 grand on a computer and then uses a crappy 1080p monitor?

Seriously?

(hint, someone really, really dumb)
Click to expand...

Or someone with an agenda....
 
Phynaz said:
Or someone with an agenda....
Click to expand...

Most people, I believe, have a 1080p (or worse) monitor.

That said, probably not those that have $4k to plunk down on a system. Maybe they have three 1080p monitors? 😉

When you can get 70% of the performance of the highest end machine for probably 20-25% of that cost, I have a hard time swallowing the difference. I'd rather just upgrade every two or three years.

Like others have said, you could build a very decent Intel rig for the same cost. Sad they are still using a Thuban vs a BD in that configuration 😛

The "but it's fast enough for most people argument" is going to get panned pretty hard here, but I agree with it. I am just happy when my friends and family are interested in PC gaming, even if they only have a $60 (or $9!) graphics card in something relatively low end (all hail first gen Core 2 and the AMD x2!) We need player (sales) volume if we continue to want AAA titles on the PC.
 
DeeDot78 said:
Although there's no website link. I'm a regular reader of PC Format magazine. In this month issue, there's a comparison of 2 rigs. 1 high end(Intel) vs Low Mid-range(Amd).

System 1
Intel 3960x
Radeon HD7970
Asrock X79 Extreme 4
Corsiar Vengance 1866
RevoDrive3 X2C
Corsair AX1200 PSU
Total- $4141.00

System2
Amd 960T BE
Radeon HD6850
Gigabyte GA970A UD3
G. Skill triden 2000
Hitachi Desktar 7K100
Cool Master 800W PSU
Total- $738


Games tested were Dirt 3, Skyrim, and Crysis 2. The Intel Rig was made to max out all games, the Amd rig dropped detail down to next level. Three reviewers where asked which was better gameplay/graphics between both rigs. The reviewers had a very hard time telling the difference between both rigs, even though the intel rig had 2x the fps. It just sheds light onto the problem of us enthusiasts, number watching on benchmarks, and not relating to real world experience. The only difference that was routinely detectable was the boot-times, due to the Revo Drive.
Click to expand...

Troll thread.
 
DeeDot78 said:
This isnt an amd vs intel. And PC formats mid(2500K) and highend(3690x) recommended system are intel processors. The extreme budget built CPU is PH11 550BE.
Click to expand...

The 2500K isn't mid-range; that would be the 2120. But even the 2120 is faster for gaming than anything AMD can come up with.

And the Celeron G530 is on average as fast or faster than the Phenom II X2 550 at a fraction of the cost. It also consumes a lot less power.
 
Hooking that up to a 1080p system is about like playing a bluray on an SD tv via composite cables and claiming that dvd is as good as bluray because it's hard to tell the difference...
 
blckgrffn said:
Most people, I believe, have a 1080p (or worse) monitor.

That said, probably not those that have $4k to plunk down on a system. Maybe they have three 1080p monitors? 😉

When you can get 70% of the performance of the highest end machine for probably 20-25% of that cost, I have a hard time swallowing the difference. I'd rather just upgrade every two or three years.

Like others have said, you could build a very decent Intel rig for the same cost. Sad they are still using a Thuban vs a BD in that configuration 😛

The "but it's fast enough for most people argument" is going to get panned pretty hard here, but I agree with it. I am just happy when my friends and family are interested in PC gaming, even if they only have a $60 (or $9!) graphics card in something relatively low end (all hail first gen Core 2 and the AMD x2!) We need player (sales) volume if we continue to want AAA titles on the PC.
Click to expand...

I really have no problem with the "fast enough" arguement except when it is used to promote AMD and ignores Intel's low and midrange chips. Dont take this personally, I am not referring to you or this post in particular. But the article linked, while technically accurate seems to be highly biased toward AMD to me for two reasons.

First, as others have already stated, they used a vastly overpriced Intel system.

Secondly, they did not show any low end Intel system. For instance they could have
built an i3 2120 system that would have been very price competitive with the AMD system, especially in gaming where the i3 really excels for a dual core chip. Right now for gaming, Intel pretty much owns every price point.
 
DeeDot78 said:
Although there's no website link. I'm a regular reader of PC Format magazine. In this month issue, there's a comparison of 2 rigs. 1 high end(Intel) vs Low Mid-range(Amd).

System 1
Intel 3960x
Radeon HD7970
Asrock X79 Extreme 4
Corsiar Vengance 1866
RevoDrive3 X2C
Corsair AX1200 PSU
Total- $4141.00

System2
Amd 960T BE
Radeon HD6850
Gigabyte GA970A UD3
G. Skill triden 2000
Hitachi Desktar 7K100
Cool Master 800W PSU
Total- $738


Games tested were Dirt 3, Skyrim, and Crysis 2. The Intel Rig was made to max out all games, the Amd rig dropped detail down to next level. Three reviewers where asked which was better gameplay/graphics between both rigs. The reviewers had a very hard time telling the difference between both rigs, even though the intel rig had 2x the fps. It just sheds light onto the problem of us enthusiasts, number watching on benchmarks, and not relating to real world experience. The only difference that was routinely detectable was the boot-times, due to the Revo Drive.
Click to expand...

Why intel high against AMD midrange . Why not intels 2600K or 2500k . These are intel mid range. Are you saying . In online gaming even tho V sync is off that a PC running at 200FPS won't be any differant than one running 100fps in online gaming?
 
I read PCFormat myself but these stupid "tests" if you can call them that get old very quickly. Apart from the fact that nobody builds a SB-E 6 core rig for gaming for any other reason than E-peen* there is no way someone would spend that type of money on a rig without going for at least 2500 x 1600 resolution if not multiple monitors.

Apart from that who decided that SB-E rig needs a 1200W PSU.... pfft

Swap that 6 core for the 4 core and drop another 7970 in there (roughly same total price) and set up eyefinity then lets see the difference between the 2. Wait until the IB 2500K replacement drops and build the same rig on a GEN 3 board and you could achieve the same results even cheaper.

EDIT> * Unless they really wanted to adopt SB-E before the 4 core dropped.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there already a thread about this very same test? I remember seeing something very similar posted a few weeks ago.

BTW- Their high end system is weak.
 
The quad core Phenom IIs are surprisingly good gaming CPUs. It's amazing to see how you can get by with a terrible CPU in most games. Even with my PII X4 games often only take 30% CPU usage or so.
 
For one thing AMD overbought the power supply on both systems. You can get by with far less on both.

Another thing is the extreme edition processor is a waste on a gaming rig. They could have put an i5 2500k in there and shaved way more off the price and not shown any difference in gameplay.

There is no reason to go socket 2011 on a gaming rig unless you have a quad or tri gpu setup.

It was dumb to put a revodrive in there. Just put a freakin SATA 3 SSD no need to go overboard.

Dumb "test" was dumb and wasteful, not fair and designed to make Intel look bad.

Give me 4k and ill build you an awesome eyefinity setup. LRN 2 COMPUTER.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top